Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Acha Shirishaila

DRT22 Sept 2025OA/1200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the bank to issue a Recovery Certificate against absent borrowers. The tribunal found the loan documents and evidence uncontroverted, confirming the outstanding dues and permitting recovery from the defendants jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 23,48,950.08 with future interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing, recoverable against the defendants and schedule property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri Acha Shirishaila — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1200/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank, (Erstwhile Karnataka Gramin Bank) Sirawar Branch, Sirwar, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Acha Shirishaila, S/o. Shekharappa, R/at Sirwar Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District -584129.

¶9

Sri. N Umapathi, S/o. Sidramappa, R/at Sirwar Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District -584129.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. B Prasanna Kumar Defendants : Exparte

OA 1200/2023

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23,48,950.08 (Rupees twenty-three lakh forty-eight thousand nine hundred fifty and paisa eight only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶17

It is the case of the Applicant (erstwhile Karnataka Gramin Bank, which later got amalgamated with the applicant) that Defendant Nos.1 as the borrowers and Defendant Nos.2 as the co-borrower availed Kishan Overdraft loan of Rs. 4,20,000/(Rupees four lakh twenty thousand only) for the purpose of working capital- Agricultural on the schedule property.

¶18

Further, at the request of the Defendants, due to drought conditions in Raichur and in accordance with the applicable government circular, the KOD Loan was closed and converted into a Term Loan of Rs. 6,52,463/- (Rupees six lakh fifty-two thousand four hundred sixty-three only).

¶19

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above

¶20

loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in

¶21

OA 1200/2023

¶22

¶23

favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule property.

¶24

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶25

In the above circumstances, the Applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite, taking out the summons, there was no appearance of Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set exparte on 27.01.2025.

¶27

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A15, got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶29

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary

¶30

OA 1200/2023

¶31

¶32

evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?

¶35

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application

¶38

remains unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying

¶39

the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the

¶40

loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The

¶41

claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶43

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶45

OA 1200/2023

¶46

¶47

by the Defendants are term loan, and also the fact that OA claim

¶48

is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 6.00% (simple). The prayer

¶49

for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶50

In the result, OA.No.1200/2023, is allowed,

¶51

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶52

of Rs. 23,48,950.08 (Rupees twenty three lakh forty eight thousand nine hundred fifty and paisa eight only) with pendente lite and future interest of 6.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶53

ii) Defendants jointly, severally, personally and their

¶54

assets are liable to be proceeded against for the shortfall if any to recover the balance amount due.

¶55

OA 1200/2023

¶56

¶57

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶58

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the

¶59

date of receipt of the order.

¶60

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶61

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶62

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶63

in terms of this final order.

¶64

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶65

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16

¶66

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶67

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me

¶68

in the open Court on this the 19^th day of September, 2025)

¶69

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶70

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

ANNEXURES

¶72

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1: Sri. Yogesh K Pandey, Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶74

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶75

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	30.11.2007	Loan Application

¶76

OA 1200/2023

¶77

¶78

A2	19.01.2008	Sanction Letter
A3	28.02.2008	Deed for Kissan OD
A4	30.01.2008	Simple Mortgage
A5 & A6	02.02.2011 & 02.01.2014	Revival Letter
A7 & A8	30.12.2016 (2)	Revival Letter
A9 & A10	14.10.2019 (2)	Revival Letter
A11	17.08.2022	Revival Letter
A12	27.09.2019	Acknowledgement of Security Letter
A13	13.06.2022	Legal Notice
A14	--	Statement of account
A15	--	Statement of account

¶79

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶80

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Acha Shirishaila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Acha Shirishaila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Lokender Attari

Central Bank of India versus M/S Pragati Cables

Uco Bank versus M/S Riddhi Medical Store

Axis Bank versus M/S Anita Logistics

Axis Bank versus Pramod

Axis Bank versus Vardhan Anand Tripathi